Paul McBride to make peace with Stewart Regan and SFA over Rangers rant

[ian1964 10,447]

Paul McBride will make peace with Stewart Regan and the Scottish Football Association ââ?¬â?? probably today, I can reveal ââ?¬â?? and thus draw some sort of line under a week when allegations and counteraccusations threatened to derail the process of administration of the game in Scotland.

 

The high-profile QC will have to deploy all of his formidable eloquence to persuade the SFA chief executive that he did not intend to inflict irreparable damage to the associationââ?¬â?¢s reputation when he gave an interview to the BBC and employed such phrases as ââ?¬Å?they [the SFA] have been shown to be not merely dysfunctional and not merely dishonest but biasedââ?¬Â.

 

I have no doubt that Regan will say his piece and say it with force of passion, but McBrideââ?¬â?¢s conciliatory approach is both welcome and necessary ââ?¬â?? whether he has been prompted by a period of personal reflection or the SFAââ?¬â?¢s complaint to the Faculty of Advocates, of which he is a member.

 

Regan has made it a mission to deliver reform of the SFAââ?¬â?¢s elephantine procedures ââ?¬â?? a process started by the outgoing president, George Peat ââ?¬â?? and has enough of a task to assemble the necessary resolutions for consideration at the annual general meeting on June 7 without having to help prepare a defamation suit against a prominent public figure.

 

Certainly words were said on both sides this week that greatly exceeded intentions or capacity to deliver. McBride will tell Regan that he does not believe ââ?¬â?? and did not intend to convey ââ?¬â?? that there is bigotry or institutional bias against Celtic within the SFA. However, he is likely maintain his insistence that the disciplinary proceedings that this week heard the cases of the Rangers trio Ally McCoist, Madjid Bougherra and El Hadji Diouf resulted in outcomes which most people ââ?¬â?? this correspondent included ââ?¬â?? believe to be skewed and that the Ibrox club have been the beneficiaries of deficiencies in the process of football justice.

 

On the other side, there was never any danger that the SFA would sue the newspapers and broadcasters who relayed McBrideââ?¬â?¢s criticism to their audiences. Leaving aside the PR meltdown that would have resulted from trying to claim damages from every publisher, TV and radio outlet involved ââ?¬â?? never mind the independent websites and news agencies which carried the story ââ?¬â?? it is a certainty that every one of them would have presented the public interest defence.

 

A leading QC accuses the governing body of football in Scotland of bias, dishonesty, hypocrisy and incompetence ââ?¬â?? on what grounds could any editor or producer decline to report that indictment?

 

As for suing McBride himself, you can be sure that had the SFA gone head to head with McBride in his natural arena the result would have been bloody and costly. The courtroom is an adversarial arena and the SFA would have presented a much larger target for McBride than he would have done for the SFA.

 

Since the art of administration is to balance enforcement with compromise, a ruling body runs a perpetual risk of being accused of double dealing, political manoeuvring and partiality. An accusation of naked bias, however, is another matter entirely and all the more so in the context of Scottish football and its domination by the behemoths of Celtic and Rangers.

 

The Daily Telegraph yesterday exclusively revealed the rationale behind the disciplinary committee�s decisions in respect of McCoist, Bougherra and Diouf.

 

It might be felt that the right reasons produced the wrong verdict but Paul McBride knows better than most that the same phenomenon is also an unremarkable product of the system that gives him his living.

 

And while he is aggrieved that Bougherra was not banned for laying hands on the referee and can cite a long list of players who have been suspended for that offence, what m�learned friend cannot do is offer a single instance where the referee involved actually entered a plea in mitigation on behalf of the offender.

 

Frankly, that fact would have been the focus of attention and argument had McBride not diverted attention with his explosive comments. Calum Murray could have stated in his report quite simply that Bougherra had manhandled him.

 

The outcome would unquestionably have been a ban for the Rangers defender. Instead, Murray declared that, as I disclosed, Bougherra had taken his left wrist ââ?¬Å?in a pleading gesture not to be sent offââ?¬Â.

 

Murrayââ?¬â?¢s intervention ââ?¬â?? and the fact that he told the committee that, at worst, Bougherraââ?¬â?¢s action was worth no more than a yellow card ââ?¬â?? immediately precluded a lengthy suspension for the player. That, and the fact that that there was a QC in the room, who would instantly have demanded to know what precedent the SFA could cite for imposing a swingeing ban on the basis of a caution.

 

Diouf was likewise not mentioned by the referee for having gone to the Rangers support and throwing his jersey into their ranks after being shown a red card. The police did not take action against him, complain or comment to the SFA.

 

Again, while you and I might suppose the SFA should have had Diouf on a disrepute charge, his QC would have asked for precedent.

 

As far as one can judge from the deliberations that went on, the committeeââ?¬â?¢s caution - timidity, even ââ?¬â?? was practically guaranteed by McBrideââ?¬â?¢s successful intervention on behalf of Neil Lennon over the issue of whether the Celtic manager should serve suspensions concurrently or consecutively.

 

At any rate, while the arguments and conspiracy theories rage on, mainly in the obsessive world of Old Firm websites, McBride will speak his conciliatory words to Regan.

 

Peace in our time? One would like to think so. On the other hand, during John Reid�s time as chairman at Parkhead, Celtic have become political street fighters, as Regan has discovered the hard way.

 

I am sure that the presence of the Baron Reid of Cardowan and the adoption of a mixture of bare-knuckle tactics and the appearance of proxy spokesmen for the club is all mere coincidence. But I�ll bet the RAF would like to have as much operational capacity as the squadron of pigs which just flew overhead.

 

Meanwhile, we look forward to the photographs of Paul McBride and Stewart Regan shaking hands with the relief of men who have just wrestled on a precipice - and realised how jagged are the rocks below.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/8452543/Paul-McBride-to-make-peace-with-Stewart-Regan-and-SFA-over-Rangers-rant.html

[Guest Dutchy]

I still think the SFA should demand a public apology when the handshaking takes place, or it's sure to happen again.

[ian1964 10,447]

Regan has been planted there by the BHEASTS for a reason

[Bluedell 5,354]

McBride publicly spoke on behalf of Celtic, which he is not allowed to do and should be in deep shit with the Faculty of Advocates.

 

No wonder he is now having to perform a humiliating climb-down

[ian1964 10,447]

McBride publicly spoke on behalf of Celtic, which he is not allowed to do and should be in deep shit with the Faculty of Advocates.

 

No wonder he is now having to perform a humiliating climb-down

 

Correct BD,he was speaking for BHEAST FC